Religion
The Future of Faith
In search of the mountains moved by faith
“The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science.”
-Sam Harris
God was an idea that blossomed in man’s mind as an explanation for the universe — there never was to be an explanation for God.
Science now closes the many questions to which our ancestors once answered with the comforting prospect of an Almighty. But for some reason, our grip on religion has not been released — yet. Over the years, even as we began to think scientifically, our thoughts on religion and the need to understand God only expanded — our questions evolved with us: from how the world worked — to why?
2001: A Space Odyssey was theorised to be about God. A far cry from the God(s) you read about in Abrahamic scripts or Bhagavad Gita, Stanley Kubrick’s was a scientific deity — one not concerned with morals and dogma so much as science and intelligent life. This theory is further substantiated by symbolic representations within the movie that mirror biblical events to a purposeful degree. However, in place of God and morals, we see advanced technology and intellect.
While I have no idea what Kubrick really intended with the movie, I find this interpretation to be particularly intriguing — since, against the general consensus of what God is, this is a glaring disruption.
The Utility of Faith
In today’s world of accelerating technological mastery, it would seem that faith and religion are slowly growing irrelevant. Faith was once paramount not just because it explained away the many mysteries of the universe, but also because it was a crutch upon which the simple man would lean, in times of difficulty and necessity.
But in time it was displaced, first by science to deconstruct the many mysteries of the world, and second by technology — as succor for man in the face of disaster and need.
Despite its diminishing relevance, most (all?) societies are religious in nature. This must indicate some social purpose of religion. Its contributions to the establishment of civilizations are arguably crucial — evolutionary benefits that aided in man’s capacity for ‘group-living’ might suggest a cornerstone role of religion in the history of civilizations.
But to think of Faith as only an evolutionary tool is an insult to it. To assume that it has lost its purpose over the centuries is, in my opinion, a lie. Despite the gradual shift toward more scientific approaches, humanity still relies on faith to explain questions to which science will never have answers. Questions associated say, with morality.
In fact, it would not be a stretch to claim that western laws are largely rooted in biblical teachings. Yes, we’re still recovering from some of the consequences of that (homophobic, sexist laws, etc.), but it has played an undeniable role in establishing society as we know it today.
Even our understanding of human rights is greatly derived from religious literature, and our collective notion of morality was shaped by it, regardless of whether we were taught the texts or not.
Although faith is a long way from becoming obsolete, the last decade has seen an increase in atheism among Americans. This is only natural, given mainstream secular trends. The Washington Post reports that around 29% of Americans consider themselves religious ‘nones’, and according to the world economic forum, a whopping 67% of the Chinese population identifies as atheistic. These numbers depict an increasing disengagement of individuals from religion. With a suitable substitute found in science, the future of faith seems bleak.
The Teleological Argument
In the face of naysayers, believers have little to no proof for defending their faith in God.
The observation of a fine-tuned universe, a deliberate, purposeful arrangement of nature is perhaps the most significant argument proposed by theists for the existence of a deity.
Certain physical constants leave a lot at stake. Their value is a delicate matter, whose precision is not just a question of life and no life, but a question of the very fabric of reality. If the values of some of these constants deviated by the slightest of margins, by the width of a hair, the consequences would be catastrophic. This precision is unlikely a coincidence.
The theory of Intelligent Design purports that certain facets of life and our reality must be attributed to an intelligent cause, rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Proponents of Intelligent Design hold that their theory is based on scientific reasoning — that the “intelligence” they refer to is not of any supernatural order. However, members of the scientific community object to these claims, branding Intelligent Design merely as disguised creationism.
The teleological argument is a significant one, and a viable defense of the faith, albeit inconclusive and easily debunked by other, more scientific theories. Despite eliciting serious criticism from both the scientific community and philosophers, it stands today as one of the most convincing arguments made in defense of theism.
The Cosmological Constant
In response to the Teleological argument, a very intriguing, now seriously considered theory has emerged from the research.
To understand the origins of this idea, it is important to know how significant a role fine-tuning has played in the existence of life. The defining demonstration of finetuning is the cosmological constant, a value corresponding to the amount of dark energy present in the universe. Unlike matter, whose gravity pulls other matter unto itself, dark energy has a repulsive property that pushes matter apart, the consequence of which is the accelerated expansion of our universe.
The value of the cosmological constant is of great interest to scientists. Here’s why.
To account for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, scientists discovered that the value of the cosmological constant must equal a certain precise value (of the order close to 10^-120), so close to zero, but not quite there, that if it were higher than it, the universe would have long expanded into cold empty nothingness, and if it were lower, would’ve collapsed unto itself. In short, the constant needed to be precisely the number it is, instead of the infinite array of numbers it could’ve otherwise been, for life, not just as we know it, but any kind of say, deviant form to have taken hold.
The magic here is that this number cannot be derived from the laws of nature. Behind its exactness, there is no logical explanation except sheer chance.
Well, two other justifications do exist. One is intelligent design, or God, as we’ve already discussed — the explanation that theists such as myself hold fast to in our desperation. The other one is a revolutionary theory, the implications of which threaten the very foundations of Judeo-Christian faith — one overmilked by big-budget superhero franchises and scandalous adult cartoons, and some wonderful sci-fi media.
The Theory of the Multiverse
To understand why the idea of the Multiverse first came up, we must perceive the infinite. In a reality that allows infinite universes, each of which supports different laws of nature arising from different fundamental constants giving rise to different environmental conditions, it is inevitable that a collection of those universes is accommodating of biology, albeit in various conceivable and inconceivable forms.
In this reality, it is expected that our universe exists, in all its apparent perfection and purpose (apparent, because it could just be survivors’ bias that we perceive it as such). Importantly, a different cosmological constant would see a drastically different outcome in its respective universe, most definitely eliminating any hope for life.
While the multiverse remains purely speculative, there is reason to believe it might be right. Certain aspects of string theory, inflation, and quantum theory are seen to be in satisfying concurrence with the theory of the multiverse, which makes it all the more alluring to scientists.
But the implications of the Multiverse concerning faith are manifold. From debunking the years-old argument of fine-tuning to wondering whether (I write from a mainly monotheistic angle) there are infinite Gods (if any) distributed, one to each of the infinite universes — or if there is only one to govern the entire multiverse, one easily comprehends the futility and pathetic nature of trying to reconcile faith and science.
The case for God grows grimmer every day. With science and technology, we have eliminated the need for her divine interference, pushing her into senility.
Recent developments in the field of artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, have raised certain quandaries — will AI develop emotions indistinguishable from humans — or a moral compass perhaps more functional than ours (Roy Batty comes to mind)? In such a scenario, what significance would the soul hold, except as an extension of some ancient concept called faith? What difference would there be between the human and the machine — the creator and its creation — between God and Adam?
Recalling 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick’s notion of a scientific God, a higher intelligent species guiding us toward becoming more advanced beings (seen as the star-child descending toward earth right before the credits roll) parallels the moral God who teaches us to become more moral versions of ourselves. If both these ideas of God are juxtaposed against ourselves and our efforts as human beings to create and nurture intelligence, we see a similarity to Kubrick’s God and a contrast to the Supernatural almighty. Could we earn for ourselves a divine status among our machines?
The internal war between faith and rationality has rendered something of a cognitive dissonance in me. Nevertheless, the verdict is clear – that there will never be a reconciliation of science with God. To me, however, this verdict seems strangely favourable to religion and religious thought.
There is no evidence for the existence of God. If there were, it would not be faith, it would be knowledge — science. It is in this never-ending struggle to convert faith into knowledge that we find ourselves in inward crises. Faith is a virtue, and it loses that quality when it becomes knowledge.
"Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
John 20:29
As science continues to displace faith in everything, any hope for validating it with evidence gradually vanishes, just as I imagine, God intended.
And as it has always been, the faithful are left with only their faith.
